sentiments regarding it, are not in the least degree changed. The substance of my former statement, as you may see, by a reference to my second letter, is nearly as follows:-The word aion occurs 104 times, in the New Testament. It is 33 times employ ed to signify a temporary duration. And it is 71 times used to denote endless duration; in 6 of which cases it expresses the misery of the damned. The word is governed by the preposition eis 61 times, in which construction it invariably, necessarily, and absolutely, means endless duration; the six cases of future punishment are placed in this aw ful predicament! For the truth of this whole statement, I appeal to any scholar whose mind is not warped or blinded by the false creed of Universalists. Let it be recollected I stated that the word, in 71 places means endless duration. In 61 of these places it is governed by eis, consequently the word in 10 places has an endless signification where it is not governed by this preposition. They are as follows:-Mark x. 30; Luke xviii. 30; John ix. 32; Acts xv. 18; Eph. iii. 9, 11, 21; Col. i. 26; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Pet. iii, 18. I have given these references to enable the reader to examine these places and judge for himself; as there has been some slight disagreement among the learned, whether they should be understood in a limited, or an unlimited sense. I believe they require to be under stood, in an unlimited sense; therefore, I have added them to the places about which the learned are agreed, making in all 71 places where the noun aion means endless duration. If this is denied I wish to see proofs, to convince the judgment, and not naked, dogmatical assertions,

which must go for nothing with every enquiring mind.

I cannot admit that eis ton aiona, forever in John viii. 35, has a limited signification. To say that a servant i. e. a sinner ver. 34, shall not abide in the house forever, or to endless duration, is very correct and proper. To say that a child or son of God, as the sense of our Lord requires it to be understood, ver. 34, shall abide in the house forever, or to eternity, is absolutely correct and true. If you say

that the son shall not continue in the house or church of God to eternity, but be cast out it is a giving up of the doctrine of Universalism at once: therefore, I hope it will not be said in future, that aion in this text has not an endless signification.

the

Regarding eti being connected with aion, in Exod. xv. 18; and in Dan. xii. 3, and epekeina in the same construction in Mich. iv. 5, I would observe that, first. These are not the only cases in which the Septuagint made bad Greek for purpose of making their version appear exactly literal. Second. It was not for the purpose of defining the exact signification of aion that such particles are a few times added to it. Third. The classical Greek writers and the inspired writers of the New Testament, never felt the need of such additional particles when they wanted to express eternity. Fourth. It was to give what appeared a litteral rendering of the Hebrew phrase, literally in England, for ever and ever, that they addedeti and epekeina. Both signifying ever, or eternity, by themselves when applied to things capable of eternal dura

tion. The two words were joined for the same reason that we join ever to forever; not because each singly does not fully express the thing intended, but because the union of both gives a stronger impression of it

Suppose I had a dispute with some man concerning the english adjective highest, and that I denied it to be of the superlative degree. And to vindicate my position quote the phrase, "O thou Most Highest," from Ps. ix. 2, in the Episcopal Protestant Prayer Book. Such precisely, is your conduct in quoting the bad Greek of the Septuagint. A scholar should

be ashamed of such conduct.

No real good can be derived from quotations taken from the uninspired, and often erroneous tranlation of the seventy; the rubbish of the fathers; or, the heterogeneous works of other enthusiasts and fanatics that may have used the word aion and aionios. We have the New Testament written in the Greek language by inspired men; and to it alone we must appeal; and by it the point must be settled.

I will lay down a few rules whereby the menaing of the words ever and everlasting may be known. These rules will apply to aion and aionios, in both the Old and New Testament.

Rule. 1. Where the word ever or everlasting is applied to an object or thing, which, in itself is not endless, as mountains, or hills; it is then to be understood in a figurative sense descriptive of a period equivalent with the duration of the object. But the word exerlasting is applied to the misery of punishment of the wicked, the wicked arc immortal in their con

stitution, therefore, the word here has an endless signification.

Rule. 2. When the word ever, or everlasting is applied to an object or thing, as the servitude of a slave; which is, in other parts of scripture, declared to have an end, the word must be taken in a metaphorical or limited sense; but no such declaration is made in scripture, concerning the punishment of the wicked; therefore, the word must be taken in an endless sense.

Rule. 3. The word ever or everlasting when applied to objects and things, always conveys an idea parallel with the duration of the object and thing which it is applied, unless they may be otherwise expressed in the text. It is applied to future punishment without any restriction whatever; therefore, it must be taken in its unlimited signification.

I shall close these observations by stating, that I call on you before the public, to show, by proper arguments that aion in the New Testament, when governed by the preposition eis, does not signify endless duration, or else give up the doctrine of Universalism, at once, as indefensible. JOSEPH M'KEE.

LETTER NO. V.
BALTIMORE, Nov. 29, 1834.

To Rev. Joseph McKee:

DEAR SIR:-I agree with you in saying, that the only question, which claims our attention in this controversy, is, whether punishment is temporary or endless; but I must consider, the charge with which your letter commences as unjust, and your questions as uncandid in the

extreme. Did you not commence the discussion, by sa ing, our difference of faith proves that our whole system is wrong? And in my reply, did I not show that there were only shades of difference among us, while among our op. posers, there are those of the greatest magnitude; and that if your argument was sound, it overthrew all religion? In doing this, I alluded to the doctrine of reprobation, infinite sin, infinite damnation, and the case of the heathen. But how do you meet this reply? Why by a most singular process-not by an argument either from reason, nature or scripture, but by the cry of wandering from the subject.An easy method this; if it should only prove satisfactory. The candid reader is not to be duped in this way, and though he may pity your dilemma, he will still call for proof. In passing, I will ask, if heathens and infants are not concerned in the question at issue, who are?

I expected, that my exposure of your partial quotations from Lexicographers would produce great uneasiness and piteous attempts at justi fication. But realy, I did not expect you would say in plain terms, it is right to quote all or a part of an author's definition, as might suit your purpose. But why not quote the whole?-By your rule, I could prove, that according to Lexicographers aion never means endless; for. all say it signifies age. I unhesitatingly declare, therefore, that you perverted the views of your authorities. I objected to your second hand quotations from Aristotle and Philo, because according to it, they differ from all other Lexicographers and from the testimony of Goodwin respecting them.--This you meet by